Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Yes, includuing a significant portion of diferent and relevant biomes and ecossystems, including KBAs and landscape of high importance
Evidence B:High level for species and a large KBA over the terriory (although not so much intact forests).
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Understand that, considering the Map of Irrecoverable Carbon, the region presents moderate relevance.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: As presented in the proposal I understand the existing governance efforts and processes are in course, with significant evolution but need strenghtening.
Evidence B:It is stated that the IP governance is there (besides relations with IPLC outside), but there is not full capacity to control the territory, particularly due to civil conflict in Colombia and governmental decisions over oil and minerals.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: I understand the significance is well explained and the proposal shows well the relevance of this region to the ethinic group considered
Evidence B:So well stated that the EoI was clearly written by an expert (whom sometimes refer to the IPs as a third part).
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The proposal and material available shows a process of increasing of threats which includes changes of land use patterns and growing non-sustainable productions
Evidence B:Although the Cumulative Development Pressures presents a variation between very high and medim high, the presence of military, ilegal and armed groups, as stated in the EoI, make it worse.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: I understand that there is a very positive evolution in recognition , but a lack when considering land occupation by different ethnic groups.
Evidence B:It is stated that the IP governance is there (besides relations with IPLC outside), but there are governmental decisions over oil and minerals.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Considering the evolution of positive results presented during the last years, and policies stablshed in both countries I believe some support exists, but is still demand a landing process of new policies and plans recently stablished
Evidence B:Apparently so…
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: I consider a strong process already existing providing good basis to succed in therms of scalling up good results and initiatives.
Evidence B:There might be some more experiences, but more localised within the set of Awa territories, not at the scale proposed by the EoI.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Yes, important initiatives stablishing a strong and relevant basis to strenght the local communities and organizations to led a scalling up process based in conservation and participatory governance
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: I believe the proposal fits very well to ICI objectives, once including well connected objectives and activities.
Evidence B:EoI presents strong arguments for both nature conservation and IPs interests.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: Good presentation of activities and expected results, including updating and review of already constructed basis and promoting a good direction to scale up processes. One point not clear to me is which actions would be implementing to construct a bridge between the two countries involved? Considering the necessity to involve diferent national governments and their agencies. I believe is important to construct a clear objective to see how to construct sinergy and cooperation between the countries.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Once clarified how actions will includes construction of sinergies between countries, I think would be better to evaluate how strong will be the project to face challenges listed.
Evidence B:As most projects usually are.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: I believe the proposal could succed with the range of investment, despite they left in blank the answer to question 17. Will be important to consider if will maintain this after review activities to include actions to promote sinerrgy between countries´s agencies and policies
Evidence B:Probably… (Not answered…)
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: I think the proposal demonstrate a strong basis of aditional support
Evidence B:Apparently.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The total area presented is low. I doon´t understand well this low number, considering the total área proposed as geographic range for the project. Maybe they are understimating the potential to achieve a bigger area of direct impacts.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: I understand the life plan pre-existing considers and is well based in cultural and livelihoods aspects and the proposal aims to provide better programatic and strategic perspective to strenght it
Evidence B:EoI presents very good connections.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: I understand the proposal has an important line of activities which includes a management plan and financial plan implementation. However aditional resources at long therm is not presented.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Very well presented in the proposal, a clear integration of actions to necessities stablished in all plans and priorities stablished at national scales.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: It is clear the understanding of necessity to promote a gender approach in the proposal.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: Yes, but need a better understanding related to how to achieve a regional set of results, considering involvement of both countries.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: I understand a strong leadership from the proponent organization
Evidence B:Considering as stated in the EoI.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: I understand in the proposal a strong leadership and indigenous organizations integrative work
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The proposal presents a very well basis of integration and participation in execution. But felt that participation in design was limited to the two proponent.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: I agree they proponent has important and strong skills and experiences.
Evidence B:First we shall consider the partner organisation in the potential project management. Then, although mentioned some GEF related knowledge, they seems not to have experience on it.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: Seems paradoxal, they present a very strong experience in manage funds and donations, but mention they don´t have financial capacity (e.g. external audits lack of experience). I think is good to clarify this point.
Evidence B:More due to the combination of roles in the two organisations.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: The proposal just mention the donnors, not including in explanation safeguards and other standards
Evidence B:NA